Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39853432›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025

Recurrence rate of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and a meta-analysis comparing craniotomy and endovascular coiling.

Gang Li

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Gang LiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Sanya Central Hospital (Hainan Third People's Hospital), No. 1154, Jiefang Road, Sanya City, Hainan Province, 572000, China. lig0550@126.com.

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province 822RC874
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with intracranial aneurysm (IA) are at high risk of cerebral hemorrhage, which is associated with high mortality. Craniotomy or interventional endovascular coiling are common treatment methods in clinical practice, depending on the patient's condition. However, the recurrence rate of IA after either method remains unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to study the relationship between different treatment regimens and IA recurrence. PubMed, CNKI, Web of Science, Wan Fang, and VIP databases were used to identify studies on "intracranial aneurysm," "craniotomy," "endovascular coiling," and "recurrence rate." Included studies adhered to rigorous screening and diagnostic criteria, and statistical models were applied based on homogeneity testing. This study encompassed 28 articles, including five on craniotomy and 23 on endovascular coiling, published between 2007 and 2022; among 1,448 cases treated with craniotomy, 20 experienced recurrences (recurrence rate: 1.4%, 95% CI: 0.2%), while among 5,975 cases treated with endovascular coiling, 872 cases experienced recurrence (recurrence rate: 14.6%, 95% CI: 14%, 20%). High heterogeneity (87%) was observed in the endovascular coiling, likely due to differences in patient demographics and aneurysm characteristics. For IAs, although endovascular coiling has advantages in terms of lower trauma and faster recovery, its high recurrence rate warrants closer post-treatment monitoring. Despite being more invasive, Craniotomy may be preferable in specific cases, such as when treating aneurysms with complex shapes or challenging locations. Treatment choice should be individualized, and future advancements in endovascular coiling technologies may help reduce recurrence rates.

Indexed as

CraniotomyEmbolization, TherapeuticEndovascular ProceduresIntracranial AneurysmHumansRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeInterventional endovascular coilingIntracranial aneurysm (IA)Meta-analysisRecurrence rateSurgical craniotomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.